This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Unknown parameters "leader_title5" and "leader_name5"
Hello, all.
I was trying to set up this infobox on International Animated Film Association and I got a message that these two parameters are unknown. I copied the template from the documentation page, which does show these as valid parameters in the table - were these removed at some point and we need to update the documentation? Or is there an error in the template? ~ MatthewrbLet's connect · Here to help16:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A small flaw, a request to fix it if possible, and a request to move a date
Greetings and felicitations. First, when a leader_name is followed by a leader_title, and the leader_name field includes a reference, the result is "John Doe[1], Title", which is a violation of MOS:CITEPUNCT. The format should be "John Doe,[1] Title", and I'm wondering if this can be fixed, possibly by somehow moving the comma to the leader_name name field, but before any <ref> tags and embedded templates? I realize that this is likely difficult, for a small gain.
Second (reposted from 16 July 2023), I find the placement of |(year)= (e.g. staff(year)) under the field's title (as in the article OnPoint NYC) to be confusing. Would it possible to place the year fields on the same line as the |[something] number= fields, separated by a space? (I don't have the knowledge to make a specific edit request, and am also wondering how other people feel about this, thus this type of post.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to an affected article for the first problem. I don't see a comma in those parameters in the infobox code. If the reference and the comma are in the same parameter value as the name, the article itself needs to be fixed.
Thank you for the second item. As for the first, I'm having trouble finding an example, for which I'm sorry. I will keep looking, and post any that I find. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry—I just assumed that Template:Infobox organization was the parent template for "Infobox law enforcement agency". As for the commas, I was hoping there is some sort of logic of an "If _ then _ else" in the template that could be implemented to take care of variations. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 19 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request to seperate out "Main Organ" and "Publication"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Requesting that the |main_organ= be seperated from |publication= and allow both concurrently to be used within an infobox.
Currently they are bundled together as being a single para meant to represent "Organization's principal body (assembly, committee, board) or publication". As it stands that "or" is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting. The governing/principal body of an organisation is very different to a publication of such an organisation, with many organisations indeed having both a governing body, and an associated publication Bejakyo (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
For the parameter "staff_year" can it be changed back to the way it used to work, i.e. displaying the year on the left side of the infobox - exactly the same way as "volunteers_year", "revenue_year", "budget_year", etc. It seems very odd for this one parameter to have been changed to work differently. Thanks. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could the word "in" before the year be removed, as it's clear what the year refers to? This would return the template to being in line with long-standing usage at {{Infobox company}}. Graham (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I fixed one more in the sandbox and then figured I would wait to see if anyone objected. Seeing no objections, I have implemented this request. I don't see it as controversial, but I don't really have a view on it one way or the other (unlike the above change, which I supported). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations use all sorts of tricky accounting moves to calculate financial numbers. I would feel much more comfortable with a separate parameter that reported profits or losses based on numbers reported in a reliable source rather than us doing original research and possibly calculating numbers that are different from those reported by the organizations in public documents. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-profits technically don't have "profits", so my section heading is misleading.
There's not much room for tricky things here: it's just revenue minus expenses (preferably set as a percentage).
There are all kinds of tricky things one can do about declaring something to be an expense or not (recent example), and for publicly traded companies, which should be using {{infobox company}} instead, there will be people who say that you should ignore this simple number and instead focus on something like EBIDTA (nicknamed "earnings before expenses"), but this particular calculation is very straightforward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]